re: UPDATE Georgia Cop faces 35 Years for shooting unarmed man

Update bump

I barely remember this, and for that reason alone with as much press as these have gotten since 2014 regardless of facts it seems strange unless jury biased that there were still 5 hold outs in jury originally who wanted felony murder before some then worked together to avoid hung jury or that there were 2 charges of felony murder for one victim. Was the assault conviction based on another action than what killed the person?

quote:

---

The six-count indictment against Olsen, 57, included two charges of felony murder, which carried a maximum sentence of life in prison.

---

quote:

---

Davis spoke to a juror who was one of five jurors holding out for felony murder verdict. He didn't want his face shown, but said he had to compromise because he didn't want a hung jury.

"[Charges] One and two are what I wanted so when I thought another jury get selected got another teammate to agree with me to do just three through six," the juror said.

---

quote:

---

He is 57 with a ten year old son.

---

So he has a history of very poor choices

quote:

---

If you were a cop in his jurisdiction dealing with animals all day every day then you’d be a jaded mofo too.

---

You have no idea what type of jurisdiction he worked. This happened 2 miles from my job. This area is not south Atlanta. Given some of the accounts others who had previous interactions with him, he had a god complex because of his badge. I'm very back the blue, but this dude had no business having a gun and authority.

I'm glad he was charged. Cops shouldn't get to shoot unarmed citizens in situations where deadly force isn't required, just because they're too lazy to use non-lethal methods.

Why was he indicted originally for 2 felony murder charges and an aggravated assault? I get there were 2 gunshots, but was there another assault on top of gunshots and another death involved?
I know states can differ in terminology on homicides, and I am probably just used to assault being merged with murder outside of completely different actions and other fall back charges if murder cannot be proven than aggravated assault. I guess would be less confused if it was 1 felony murder and 1 aggravated assault (treated like one bullet assaulted and one killed).

If assault connected to the gunshots and victim dies how do you convict of assault and not of felony murder. That being said one witness seemed to do a lot of harm with murder charge by testifying he thought person was going to attack the police officer.

quote:

---

The testimony by maintenance worker Pedro Castillo Flores is important because it bolsters Olsen's contention that he believed Hill was about to do him harm. It came on the second day of Olsen’s murder trial
When Olsen arrived at the scene, Hill began running at him and refused to halt even though Olsen pointed his handgun at Hill and twice yelled for him to stop. Witnesses say Olsen fired two fatal shots when Hill was about five or six feet away.


Castillo Flores, speaking through an interpreter, was asked by defense attorney Amanda Clark Palmer if he thought Hill was going to attack Olsen when he ran at him.

"That's what I thought that day," Flores said.

When prosecutor Pete Johnson later tried to lessen the blow of Castillo Flores' testimony, he didn't get the answer he was hoping for.

"Did the officer have to shoot Anthony to stop him?" Johnson asked.

"Yes," Castillo Flores said. "He was running towards him."

Johnson also asked Castillo Flores whether Olsen could have used other means at his disposal — such as his hands, his baton or a Taser — to stop Hill. "Yes, that's possible," the maintenance worker replied.

But the damage had already been done, said Atlanta lawyer Esther Panitch, who was in court Friday to observe the proceedings.

"Mr. Castillo Flores' testimony just devastated the state's case," she said. "The defense was able to get the witness, a friend of Mr. Hill and an eyewitness, to concede that Robert Olsen had to shoot Anthony Hill given Mr. Hill's behavior that day."

At the close of testimony on Friday, the state had presented eight witnesses, including three eyewitnesses who saw Hill run at Olsen before being shot and killed. Those three — two maintenance workers and a resident of the complex — all seemed to agree on several key points:

When Olsen arrived at the scene and stopped his squad car in the parking lot, Hill was nude and in a crouching position a good distance away.
When Hill saw the police car, he got up and began running toward it.
Olsen, upon getting out of the car, drew his weapon and pointed it at the advancing Hill.
When Olsen twice yelled at Hill to stop, he slowed down a bit but kept advancing at Olsen, who began backing up.
Olsen shot Hill when he was about five to six feet away from him.
Prosecutors have repeatedly asked witnesses if Hill had been acting aggressively, had a weapon or was threatening anyone at the scene. All of the witnesses said that was not the case.

Castillo Flores, who was standing off to the side in the parking lot when the shooting occurred, said Olsen looked surprised when Hill began running at him. He admitted he also was surprised by Hill's actions.

---

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/dekalb-county/day-2-in-trial-of-dekalb-police-shooting-of-naked-veteran/991031896

They say he was not aggressive to them beforehand, but 3 eye witnesses still help the officer by confirming aggressive type actions towards officer including 1 who thought officer had to fire weapon. Again without knowing all of Georgia's laws in play including if any are specific to police on duty I still wonder how a jury concludes act wasn't in self defense, is an aggravated assault (that seemly is agreed by all to have killed the person), but was not a murder. Its like the one jury member stated to reporter that some banded together to at least get officer convicted on something when only 5 were ready to convict for felony murder.

This case is a crock of shite and will get overturned at the appeal. It’s idiotic to think a cop can’t shoot someone running at them trying to attack.

Tasers don’t work all the time

Pepper spray doesn’t work all the time

The entire argument the prosecutor made was that the cop should expose himself to needless unknown risk and get into a fist fight with people that charge them looking to attack the cop.

Idiotic.

(no message)

quote:

---

The deceased was a 26 year old mentally ill afghan vet that was running around naked in apartment complex, cops show up, guy charges cop, cop shoots. Cops had no advance knowledge the guy was off his meds or was mentally challenged, etc.

---

I think part of the problem with today's police is the quickness to escalate to shooting. Cops have tasers, beanbags and pepper spray. There's absolutely no reason to go to your most lethal weapon first in this scenario.

What's interesting is when you look at similar instances on COPS or LivePD. Notice how when the cameras are around those sorts of events do not end in death?

We can MMQ this all day long but to me it seems there needs to be a bit more training for offices on how to quickly differentiate between lethal and non-lethal scenarios.

See that reasoning doesn't work for me.

I understand non-lethal methods don't work 100% of the time. But by that logic why even carry them around. Just because it's not guaranteed to work doesn't mean you don't try. That is a terrible precedent.